Re: [bitcoin-dev] bustapay BIP :: a practical sender/receiver coinjoin protocol

2019-01-26 Thread Adam Gibson via bitcoin-dev
Ryan and list, I want to add some commentary to this (BIP79) to see if we can get further in standardizing this idea. When I first mulled it over I thought it too impractical, but its virtue of steganographic hiding means only minimal uptake is still enormously interesting and worth pursuing;

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bustapay BIP :: a practical sender/receiver coinjoin protocol

2019-01-27 Thread Adam Gibson via bitcoin-dev
iness, or they can totally ignore it - but without it being mentioned in the BIP, they may not even think of it. A last point, you also don't see value in being more explicit about simple things like transaction version and locktime? Even if you think these things should *not* be controlled, e.g. the protoco

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bustapay BIP :: a practical sender/receiver coinjoin protocol

2019-01-29 Thread Adam Gibson via bitcoin-dev
ZmnSCPxj, thanks, responses inline. On 28. 01. 19 5:14, ZmnSCPxj wrote: > Good morning Ryan and Adam, > >> [UIH2 snipped] > > Perhaps I am being naive, but I seem, the B2EP and similar do not need to > worry about UIH2. > > From the github discussion: > >> "UIH2": one input is larger than